While the snowy weather kept many of you entertained this past week, some of you took the challenge baton and ran with it. Boy did you run with it; making the job of picking a winner particularly challenging. On the surface, the brief was simple; take a ‘streetscape’ self-portrait in the style of celebrated American photographer Lee Friedlander. But the challenge was more than just a picture; I wanted the story behind it.
It was a close call this week; there were some fantastic submissions and ‘most’ of you thought about the story (I’m raising an eyebrow at you Mhatti3000
).
So, without further ado (drumroll) the winning image is Sarah Rajalabee’s ‘Empty On The Inside’ shot on a Canon G12 (ISO 400, f4.5, 1/100). The image and the story behind it are particularly apt given the current state of the high street.
Sarah: ‘The high street is fast becoming a ghost street with big names such as Jessops and Comet disappearing and now HMV going into administration. What will happen to these empty premises? With such big companies going, does this mean that smaller, independent shops will rise to take their place? Or will everything go digital? I also took this photo with staff who have lost their jobs in mind. It’s not a good feeling to have. ‘
Congratulations Sarah on your winning image, and for your other submissions.
In 2nd place is Andrew Wilson’s ‘iHuman’ shot on his newly acquired D20. I really loved the placement of Andrew’s face in this shot. Also you get some extra kudos for submitting some images shot on film.
Andrew: ‘I took this picture against a dummy in a shop, the dummy was completely undressed, a black mannequin seemingly advertising the fact that there was a sale on, a sale of what I don’t know. If it was dressed I could have imagined a life in those clothes but alas..’
Coming in 3rd position is Alfred Hefander’s ‘Snow day selfie, bathroom window’ shot on his Canon PowerShot SX130 IS
Alfred: ‘This was a last minute thing. I had no plans on entering this time around, however I changed my mind when inspiration hit me like a snowball out of the blue. It had been snowing all day, and having a 2 year old son I decided to head into the back yard to mess about in the snow and build a snowman. My wife was sitting just inside the back room watching us. I’d taken lots of photos of the snowman and my son, but had none of my wife, so I went up to the backdoor to take a photo through the glass. The composition was such that the darkness of my reflection made it easy to not only see my wife through the glass, but also see myself. This is not the entry piece, there is no way my wife would have set yes to it, but it gave me an idea.
Our bathroom windows are designed to make it difficult to see detail (particularly NAKED detail), but the obfuscation design is on the inside leaving the external sidz of the glass very reflective. The shots (1 & 2) make it look as if it has been put through some kind of photoshop filter, but everything is natural (you can see our bottle of mouthwash through the glass). In fact, I haven’t adjusted the photos digitally in any way at all. They are as the camera took them. Natural, spur(ish) of the moment and in the vein of Lee Friedlander. It could almost be a black and white shot, if it wasn’t for the subtle yellow light shining through from the kitchen ‘
And finally, my virtual 4th place award goes to Spencer Hart for ‘Hooded’. Spencer shot his image with an Olympus E-PL1 and Panasonic 20mm f1.7.
Spencer: ‘I took this when I went for a walk in town after the first flurry of snow this week. I thought my reflection in a melted puddle looked quite ominous, especially with the branches towards the edges reflection.’
As usual, you can see all of the images over on the Gizmodo UK flickr page. We will do our best to add the stories behind the images to the descriptions.
Thanks again to everyone that took the time to shoot themselves. There will be another Shooting Challenge next week; I’m off to look through my little black book to pick a subject.
Martin Snelling is a Hampshire-based man about town who works in the videogame industry. A keen photographer, Martin shoots on film and digital; he blogs here, and tweets here.

















Well done to Sarah, I did take a few images in front of my recently closed Comet but they didn’t come out too good, no where near as good as Sarah’s did.
I’m a bit disappointed that my shot picked by Martin wasn’t one of the ones I shot on film, but am very happy at coming second. I will certainly be shooting on film for the next challenge, as well as with my new digital baby.
Cant wait for one of these shooting comps to be on when Im not so busy!
I really wish that my selfie was in the front page, it was not only a self shot, it was a poem dedicated to the second most loved “writer” of all times.
All that said, every single entry was better than mine. Congrats Sarah, Alfred and Wilson.
Oh and Spencer of course.
“Dedicated to the second most loved ‘writer’”? You must mean Jesus Diaz!
The title was “Ceci est pour vous Monsieur Biddle”.
Third place would be… I forgot his name that’s how much I love him/it.
Fourth Diaz.
And the number one douche has got to be the super douche that wrote Mein Kampf.
I just had a look at your entry, and think it and your comment are pretty disrespectful, to be honest.
Can we all see it then so we can decide?
ps. lighten up Kat
http://goo.gl/vwlxE
Really? I thought it was all in good fun, maybe you should lighten up.
Naughty boy M , now Mummy is upset with you. Naughty step if you’re lucky, or it may be time for Mr and Mrs Spank to take a trip to Botty town.
You can’t have a list of bad writers that goes
1. Hitler
2. Sam Biddle
What about Jeffrey Archer, or Jeremy Bloody Clarkson or any of the cocks that write their garbage in the tabloid press.
On a related note LARGE GLASS OF WINE FOR THE STRESSED EDITRIX, STAT.
Oh, I didn’t know Clarkson could write! Living and learning.
Crayon mostly, but it still counts.
I’d really rather not.
Not you
I’m sorry that I’m protective of the fact my writers and colleagues have feelings too. Just because we have a CMS log-in, doesn’t mean we’re immune to jeers.
Was it offensive because I called Hitler a douche?
Kat will be getting out the big ruler now.
and here she is…
Hahaha, careful I think she is not in a good mood today
If she objects, I’ll change it. Plenty more where that came from.
I guess she objected then.
I would respond this way, on any given day of the week. In fact, if this were the US site, I would’ve banned you over that comment.
If it was the US site I would have stopped commenting and reading it a long time ago.
I just hope you understand the predicament I’m facing here, where I see a commenter — a long-time, loyal commenter, no less — rank two of my colleagues on a list just under Hitler. While including a photo flipping the bird, no less.
It’s hard not to take offense to that, nor think less of the person who does that.
I just want to make some things clear. I like your site, articles and all of your UK based team.
There are two writers in the American website that are rude, they offend left, right and center, they never measure their words. About very few times I have voiced my opinion against these two individuals and I took this photo as a joke more than anything else, my disdain for both would not allow me to be serious.
The list is for douche writers and I am not comparing them to Hitler they come in lower positions, and as they are entitled to voice their opinions, so am I. That is why you have a commenting section I assume, or you have it just so you can hear praises?
Thanks; I do know you like the site, otherwise you wouldn’t be commenting and reading so much, so please don’t think I’m not aware or appreciative of that, really.
What really angers and saddens me is the bandwagon-jumping pitchfork-waving commenters, hating on some of the writers just because they see other commenters doing so. Several readers, when I’ve confronted them over their hate-filled comments, have admitted they didn’t necessarily see anything wrong with the post; they just wanted to join in on the fun the other commenters were having with it. I should start keeping a spreadsheet of these occurrences; they’re alarmingly frequent.
I’m sorry you feel Sam Biddle and Jesus Diaz are rude and offensive. It seems we will always disagree on that, as I think both of them actually take smart angles on interesting subjects, and while they do stir up a healthy amount of debate, I don’t think it warrants the comments their posts seem to attract. Perhaps their posts go over the majority of the commenters’ (it’s important here that we distinguish commenters from readers) heads?
While you may not be comparing my colleagues to Hitler, you’re placing them on a list of douche writers, second only to Hitler. I don’t care what you say about that not being offensive, but I’m offended by it, so let me apply my trademark response of “if you don’t like their posts / this site, just don’t read them / this site,” and let’s move on to making fun of iFanboys, shall we?
Can’t be slagging off writers like that then arguing with Kat so agressively.
Ban him
p.s. Was a shit photo anyway.
Don’t be offended and yes, let’s make fun of the fanboys, any kind of fanboys, Apple is already mocking their iFanboys it would make me feel like we are “ganging” up on them.
Sorry Kat – I have to continue this discussion since what you just said is entirely unfair. Before I do though – high kudos for actually responding to your commenters – this sense of community is the reason that despite a superfluity of dodgy articles, I still read Giz.
Your reference to ‘bandwagon-jumping pitchfork-waving commenters’ seems to fairly broadly tar all commenters who dislike some of your authors posts with the same brush. I can justify why I don’t like their posts, and I expect M Hatti can too. I’d be interested to see that potential spreadsheet of your challenges and responses, although it seems like rather a waste of time just to prove a point…
Anyway – “Smart angles on interesting subjects” is almost precisely the opposite of what, largely, the two authors mentioned do. Take the following sample articles:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/01/the-mortar-that-makes-holes-in-the-sky/
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/01/this-is-not-a-scene-from-blade-runner/
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/01/here-is-another-reason-why-lego-is-awesome/
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/01/friends-throw-guy-overboard-right-next-to-a-great-white-shark/
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/01/these-people-are-now-sharing-horrible-things-about-themselves-thanks-to-facebook-search/
I’m not criticising necessarily, but honestly, how are these smart angles or interesting subjects? And what could possibly go over our heads here??! Some of them are basically just images with an elongated caption. I’ve seen more interesting Facebook feeds.
As for your ‘if you don’t like their posts/ this site’ speech, surely user feedback is what shapes good sites? Besides, in amongst all the rubbish are some really intelligent and interesting stories, and some that just raise a smile! Frankly, I normally wouldn’t post a response like this, but I think it’s clear from M Hatti’s comments and his cheerily facetious photo entry that he’s mocking with a smile on his face, not maliciously waving a pitchfork…
Thanks for reading
@Lukep you are lucky there is no reply on your dumb arse comment, otherwise I would show you what agressive is.
http://yourkillinmesmalls.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/treyhickman.jpeg
@Lukep Of course I meant as a comment, I would not get into violence. Plus I have seen your size dude, I would not want to get in a fight with you.
One more thing, you were not even called into this conversation so move along.
Hi there,
I can only provide a brief response, as Sam’s off today and I’m hugely snowed under, but basically, of those links you provided, the first two are categorised under “image cache” — we use this category when the post is summed up almost entirely in the image. We do a brief 40-word description underneath, but it’s designed as eye candy, is all. Those two examples are quite interesting, actually — the first came from Jesus’s contacts (he’s got some amazing relationships with military folk), and the second he stumbled across on Twitter.
The third and fourth links are what we refer to internally as “off-topic”; that is, content which isn’t tech-related, but falls within our Gizmodo remit. Lego is obviously central to any nerdlinger’s life, and as you may’ve guessed, anything with a human interest angle is really Giz. The fourth, categorised under “WTF” (a category we mostly use for YouTube videos, or other wacky stories), is admittedly not one of my favourite posts, but as you should also know after reading the site for so long, we do like anything a bit odd-ball. There’s not much you can delve into within that video, hence it was used as a light-hearted post, and not, say, the science behind sharks’ olfactory nerves, or anything like that.
The last link, by Biddle, I actually think DOES present a new angle. Facebook’s Graph Search can be written about sycophantically until the cows come home, BUT there’s no doubting that it can also make people appear like real idiots — and potentially pose problems for them in the future, with finding employment etc. That post was designed as a wake-up call for anyone who might not be aware of what they’d liked on Facebook (I myself went through my likes after reading that post, suddenly paranoid friends had fraped me and my likes without my knowledge!), and also fit well within our brand values. It also did very decent traffic, and while it wasn’t the biggest breaking news story or anything, it was also a piece of original reporting by Biddle.
If I wasn’t juggling two jobs today, I’d ready a retort with five links of my own, demonstrating the kind of smart blogging (note that I didn’t say “journalism”) that I was thinking of from those two, but alas, I want to ensure you guys actually have something to read on the site today.
I think people all too often forget that Gizmodo is a BLOG, not a journalistic publication.
I think you’ve quite evidently been finding it harder to bite your tongue more recently, and I can understand that the stresses of your job contribute to this, but I think the snapping needs to stop. I don’t think anybody could truly say it’s unwarranted (there are some right cretinous dogs down here), but I think it’s forcing a negative view of you from our side. Maybe it’s time to dust off the banhammer – I imagine it to be quite therapeutic!
P.S. please don’t read this as me trying to tell you how to do your job. I’m just saying, from my perspective, things are getting a bit too heated.
I shoulda read that before I posted – I sound so condescending…
Hi Glen,
I didn’t think you were condescending — on the contrary, I actually thought you wrote a pretty decent comment. I don’t like painting myself, or being painted, as some kind of school marm — but honestly, that’s what I feel like whenever I dip my toe into the comments field. It’s pretty understandable why editors and even writers on other bigger tech sites never even bother to read the comments. It’s soul-destroying, and frankly, makes me hugely anxious.
BUT I am willing to do all I can to encourage a positive commenting community. The amount of shit I’ve had to deal with this week; fielding emails from commenters complaining about being bullied by other commenters, for example. I had to mark someone as spam on the commenting side, so their comments don’t ever appear on the site again — it’s only the second or third time I’ve had to do it, as it’s tantamount to banning them (which is something I said we’d never do), but honestly, there are some downright aggressive, and even scary people that pop up in the comments occasionally.
What I can’t stand is the “exclusive” nature some of our long-time commenters are trying to endorse. It flies in the face of everything I’m trying to push with the site, and surely they must understand that if the same old faces keep commenting, it’s going to get pretty dry around here. Not to mention the fact that sites like ours rely on traffic to survive; traffic requires new readers, and of those new readers, some of them will want to comment.
I don’t want to snap at any commenters, believe me. But if I don’t weigh in every now and then, this place can quickly turn into Lord Of the Flies between commenters, and after seeing that happen a few times, I’d rather be painted as the villain myself, than have to deal with genuinely-upset-and-fearful commenters.
Can’t argue with that, really. Whilst I don’t witness to much of that behaviour myself, obviously I can understand your responsibility to react to certain things.
spits-put-tea. WAAAAAA?? how the hell did I miss this challenge???
spits-out-tea*
You need to stop doing that – the tea’s shorting out your keyboard
You were probably away at a tea spitting contest when it was announced.
damn left it too late again.
well done sarah
*Fist pump*
Third! yes yes yes…
Congrats Sarah and Andrew for your 1st and 2nd places.
Congratulations Sarah, Alfred, Wilson and Spencer.
I personally like Spencer Hart’s pic, looks epic!